Is it time to rethink 2000 points as the "standard" in AoS?

[azdimy]

With the ghb, I saw my collection increase in points by about 10%. With those changes it was effectively cheaper to build a 2000pts army for about 9 months. This latest price increase just bring us back to where we were monetary wise to build a 2k army. I don t see this as a reason to look into smaller point games

[the Fel-hand]

5 hours ago, pnkdth said:

1500 or 2000? Why not both?

As for competitive games, it would be very interesting to see two different metas evolve.

I also think players underestimate how much fun it actually is to play armies where you cannot plonk down a super unit + how changing things up will add more to their game.

 

I think this is a really important point, there doesn't need to be a "standard" size, the game can and should have multiple formats. It's really important that the game feels rewarding at different sizes. Keeps new players engaged and gives us more options.  

I think the main reason we tend to view 2000 points as the standard is because of events, both GW and independent. The more local events just follow the big one's lead. I know ITC would poll for game size in earlier editions, but it always seemed to be all or nothing. Personally, I prefer 1500-point games you can still run some big stuff but with objectives you still need to have enough boots on the ground to hold things.

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

As much as I would like smaller games to be better supported, the way AoS is designed right now is definitely with 2000 points in mind. 2000 points being the expected point value influences everything including relative distances, battle plan mechanics and the fundamental damage math. The further you move away from 2000 points the more the game breaks down.

I also find that it's hard to implement any blanket restrictions that would make lower point levels play better. It seems to me that the proposed extra rules (restricting reinforcements, repeat warscrolls, certain battlefield roles...) neither affect all problem units nor only problem units. I think it's basically always just trading one kind of jank for another:

No repeat warscrolls? Why is bringing two Steam Tanks banned when one each of Fulminators, Concussors, Desolators and Tempestors is fine?

No reinforcements? Why do we need to restrict skeletons into uselessness when Annihilators are allowed to run around at basically full power?

Only one behemoth? One Morathi does a lot more work than four Cygors.

Personally, I like playing at sub 2000 point levels. But that is because I am comfortable with the jank, not because I think it's better for competitive games.

[Mutton]

I think 1500 should be the norm. But you'll have a hard time convincing most long-time GW customers.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Mutton

[Wordy9th]

The game feels balanced for 2k points, to the point where anything below that mark usually needs some kind of social contact agreement between players to not bring units that break the balance at lower point levels.

i played a lot of games from 1-1.5k points while collecting my army and it only really felt like a balanced game once I hit the 2k mark. 
 

GW feels confident enough to say that the 2k point mark is the level where total strangers can play with to the letter rules, and that’s the point where I feel most comfortable playing at.

Othwrwise it can tend to feel like DND, where you need a solid social contract basis to play essentially make believe rules for a good time. 

[Rors]

11 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Is this necessarily a bad thing though?  Should a handful of armies stay at the top of the competitive scene because they're popular?  I've been in the hobby for a long time now and seen the rise and fall of many armies due to changes in the rules and associated army books, I can 100% say that it's not unprecedented to see an army go from smashing face to the middle/bottom of the pack.  Yes there is a load of backlash, but it lasts a few weeks until people spot the latest fomo army and grab that.

Not at all. My statement was more of a neutral comment that within the community there'd be resistance due to this. As mention people who bought god models and other big combo units will cry foul.

On the note of god models and the price increases, I suspect GW have created a feedbacks loop that will see more Gods on the table. Dollars to points ratio, a lot of the gods are actually cheap if you want to reach 2k quickly. I think Nagash might have one of the best dollars to points ratios in the whole game.

We could actually see an effect where people buy gods because it's a quick way to 2k, and GW marketing notice this and double down on mega units making it harder to reduce game size even though that's inadvertent what players are actually trying to do by taking gods.

 

[novakai]

I think in the end GW would have to change the system to a smaller point value rather then community comping it to work. Let be Frank the community can’t come together to get anything done and rather follow what GW wants the game to be. 
 

the community also then to want to play balance games when playing semi competitive casual environment ( where most people are) and then to lean on the match play because it the fairest way to play over narrative and open play.

Meeting engagement was a good start but it had balance problem and  got worse when armies started to have on board teleportation which basically destroy the balance of the format. Instead of building on it, GW sort of gave up on it because it seem like no one played it over match play.

[Rors]

It's a side topic but if people are interested in smaller games that are really well ballanced check out Malifaux. It's waaaaay cheaper, the rule system is tighter and the models are almost as good as GW.

While I love Age of Sigmar and it's been great to see the growth of AoS and 40k. I can't wait for it to bleed I to these smaller communities. Actual competition will be good for GW and some of these smaller companies and honestly making better games right now, they just don't have a large a player base making games harder to find.

 

[pnkdth]

17 hours ago, the Fel-hand said:

 

I think this is a really important point, there doesn't need to be a "standard" size, the game can and should have multiple formats. It's really important that the game feels rewarding at different sizes. Keeps new players engaged and gives us more options.  

I think the main reason we tend to view 2000 points as the standard is because of events, both GW and independent. The more local events just follow the big one's lead. I know ITC would poll for game size in earlier editions, but it always seemed to be all or nothing. Personally, I prefer 1500-point games you can still run some big stuff but with objectives you still need to have enough boots on the ground to hold things.

 

Exactly, one of my main problems with AoS is just how stagnant the meta is. Same lists, day in day out with the occasional meme-list. With 1500pts you have to make more choices and make due with what you got and I think the main reason we say "it is balanced for 2000pts games" is because we're familiar with 2000pts games. Had this been an alternate timeline I'm sure we'd sit here and talking about how centrepiece/god tier models are not good for the game and isn't at the heart of what AoS is about.

There are also practical reasons for liking 2000pts games and I am not discounting those.

TL;DR: I wanna see both 1500 and 2000 games cause evolving/different meta = fun.

 

[Kadeton]

As far as balance goes, "The game is balanced at 2000 points" is something we tend to accept without too much thought, while on the other hand acknowledging that some armies are tremendously powerful and others are extremely weak at 2000 points.

The reality is that some armies would be powerful and some weak at 1500 points or 1000 points as well - you just wouldn't necessarily find the same army in the same relative position.

[azdimy]

Gw changes the points enough that we don t need to play smaller points as our standard game. My 2k aos1 khorne army jumped to 2500pts when the second ghb dropped. That has the same effect as them saying the default game size we recommend is 1500pts. Since I ve played aos, my armies have kept shrinking in terms of number of models on the table and now look no bigger than what I ve seen on the table when people played privateer press warmachine most of the time.  It s been the opposite of my fantasy battle experience where armies kept getting bigger with point drops and rule changes promoting bigger unit blocks.

I guess we ll see what direction gw decides to go after the realm of guhr but if we don t reverse the trend of small armies, I don t see any reason to look at playing games smaller than 2k

[greg19190]

I think the main question is what army(s) you play and what effects it has on the points that work for you. Like it has been said before on the group that the top meta carnt do as well at the lower point scale compared to the bottom.

be interesting to see if that is the case with a poll on armys played and prefered points level (fun and competitive) 

[Neverchosen]

Honestly points do not have intrinsic value so to me it is less an issue of what amount of points we play and more the physical size of the army. A good example is that 40k also uses 2000 point armies but overall army sizes seem to be significantly larger.  I am happy that each edition GW seems to raise the points but through powercreep alone the points invariably slide down again resulting in even elite armies beginning to feel like hordes at the end of an edition. 

My solution would be to keep the game points value at 2000 but upon the release of an edition increase the points of every unit further so that we are essentially still playing '2000 point' games and then they can add further granularity to the point value as the edition goes along. 

In terms of a more immediate solution: Yes I prefer smaller scale games, but it still feels like the game balance has been created with 2000 points in mind. 

[Gitzdee]

1000 point is the way to go for me. Takes less space, less time and its enough for me to do some fun list building. Also from a collectors perspective it is the sweet spot for me. I can buy most units once and be able to field a nice 1000 point list. I rather collect more 1000p armies than a few larger armies. I dont like buying 12 Gore Gruntas if i can collect and paint up different models. 

Do i think that it will be the new standard? I dont think it will be, for some of the reasons mentioned before. But i do hope it becomes a more popular format. I would like to see more content for 1000 point lists and battles for sure.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Iksdee

[BadDice0809]

I blame the GHB for the 2k de facto standard. Interestingly, the core rulebook mentions 1.5k as it's own battlesize. Then, suddenly, in the GHB, all mention of 1.5 disappears. All the battle plans are assumed to fit 2k games, and use the standard 2k board size metrics. Further, unlike in the 40k equilivalent, there are not any separate missions for 1k games in the GHB. Its like whoever wrote the Core Rules wanted to leave open the possibility for expansion in smaller level games (in the similar 'matched play' format). Then... whoever gave input in the GHB (I'd assume playtesters) promptly removed it from contention. 

I wish AoS had something like 'Incursion' sized missions to legitimize lower point match play style games. Frankly, meeting engagements was a complete mess. From the 'just hang the model off the base,' to the not!Warcry deployment... I dont know how that idea got through any feedback.

[Rachmani]

19 hours ago, BadDice0809 said:

I blame the GHB for the 2k de facto standard. Interestingly, the core rulebook mentions 1.5k as it's own battlesize. Then, suddenly, in the GHB, all mention of 1.5 disappears. All the battle plans are assumed to fit 2k games, and use the standard 2k board size metrics. Further, unlike in the 40k equilivalent, there are not any separate missions for 1k games in the GHB. Its like whoever wrote the Core Rules wanted to leave open the possibility for expansion in smaller level games (in the similar 'matched play' format). Then... whoever gave input in the GHB (I'd assume playtesters) promptly removed it from contention. 

I wish AoS had something like 'Incursion' sized missions to legitimize lower point match play style games. Frankly, meeting engagements was a complete mess. From the 'just hang the model off the base,' to the not!Warcry deployment... I dont know how that idea got through any feedback.

The good thing about it being the GHB is, that… it’s the GHB.

Meaning, the next one could just as well change things up a bit.

I would love some separate 1k & 1.5k battleplans and in general some love for smaller game sizes. 1k tournament could be super relaxed for example.

[Marcvs]

16 minutes ago, Rachmani said:

I would love some separate 1k & 1.5k battleplans and in general some love for smaller game sizes. 1k tournament could be super relaxed for example.

It could be, but, just as a 2k one, it would require some rules or TO intervention to be so. I still remember that little 1250 pts tournament in AoS 2.0 where I had the pleasure of playing vs Kroak and 3x3 salamander packs [shivers]

[Rachmani]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

It could be, but, just as a 2k one, it would require some rules or TO intervention to be so. I still remember that little 1250 pts tournament in AoS 2.0 where I had the pleasure of playing vs Kroak and 3x3 salamander packs [shivers]

Exactly. That’s basically what I was hinting at.

Could have specified better, though.

Don‘t get me wrong, I enjoy the dirty tournament filth as much as the next guy, when… I wanna play a tournament with dirty tournament filth.

But I also enjoy tournaments (actually not just tournaments but games in general) with a different mindset even more, one more rooted in story, narrative and frankly with cooler looking armies. Basically the stuff I want to spend time painting and playing with instead of the stuff I want to win with. Smaller games could be a good entry into that world.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Rachmani

[Popisdead]

People aren't good at breaking off the norm.  When something outside a narrow view is introduced or changes generally the vocal minority raises a negative response (such as the pricing change).  

Two classic examples for me, this century are (40k) Planet Strike and Storm of Magic.  Both created some new different ways to play and at least locally people revolted if they found one instance where it was a game breaking issue (such as a HE dragon mage on that platform thingy).  The games i played were different and fun.  Did I care about balance? No, did i have fun? Yes, was my opponent into it? yes.  

In the end of 8th ed the game proved so imbalanced and army books had significant cases of internal and external balance issues, when I heard about people breaking off and playing for fun, using End Times rules and enjoying the game over practicing for tournaments, those people where shunned.  AND that was the edition that killed nearly all local player's interest in Fantasy.  

40k introduced a really good system for Crusade, it exists in AoS I believe and I've heard little about people playing it.  

It's nearly impossible to get people to play with anything other than 2k Matched Play points.  

It comes down to asking people to try something and seeing how it worked.  Also not being overly negative.  

Wasn't there a meme that said "the two things gamers hate are change and lack of change."  Be the change you want.  Find people who will play Path to Glory, make bat reps, promote them, talk about playing the game in a system that isn't strictly 2k MP.  

I'm all for playing different ways to play and hope you succeed and kudos for bringing this up

[Equinox]

I don't believe it should be a discussion about a point standard as much as the community being more acceptive and tolerant towards games below 2000 points.  

On 2/17/2022 at 10:55 AM, Popisdead said:

It's nearly impossible to get people to play with anything other than 2k Matched Play points.  

It comes down to asking people to try something and seeing how it worked.  Also not being overly negative.  

Throughout my hobby "career" this has been my experience as well.  I have always found it particularly odd that a segment of the community will tell others how 1000 point games are broken and not fun, but the same arguments about 2000 point games don't carry an equal weight of opinion.  I am certain a large part of that is personal bias, but it can be very frustrating as someone who prefers 1k as it feels like an uphill battle just to play at that size.  

To my earlier point, it is the community that makes games outside the usual point size difficult.  In many cases it seems like a debate centers on why a player should play at 2k vs why a player prefers to play at 1k.  As an example, I played a 1k game this weekend at a local store and a tournament player showed up and began soapboxing about tournament play being at 2000 points.  What I found interesting (and admittedly annoying) was he would comment on rules at 1k during my game (he was spectating), but kept getting those rules incorrect (board size, unit sizes/limits, etc.).  During the same game, another player joined the conversation and stated the reasons why they preferred 1k (smaller armies, shorter time commitment, etc.).  Keep in mind my example is anecdotal and I still had a good afternoon of gaming with everyone, but is an experience I have had with enough frequency to form my view on the topic.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Equinox

[Dingding123]

Question: what all changes between 1500 and 2k games besides the number of points?  Fewer battleline requirements?  Is that it?  Then Gargants and other warscroll spam lists are absolutely going to have a field day because there's no incentive to any other strategy.  Competitive players not going to have room for chaff in their army vs monsters so they're going to take Kragnos or Archaon instead, which will now take up half of their points.

3.0 command points and other things need a look at well before army size.  All-Out Attack/Defense/Unleash Hell would all matter less if they weren't virtually for free every round.  Also what's the point of Battalions if everyone's just taking one-drop lists and hoping they win the coin flip?

[Equinox]

16 minutes ago, Dingding123 said:

Question: what all changes between 1500 and 2k games besides the number of points?  Fewer battleline requirements?  Is that it? 

I believe at 1500, you cannot have any single unit with a point cost >750. That removes Archaon, Nagash, and some god models.  I would have to look at SoB points to see the impact.    Battleline doesn't change as far as I know from 2000 points. 

Correction: Kragnos is 720, so he would be an option.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Equinox
Correction

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, Dingding123 said:

Question: what all changes between 1500 and 2k games besides the number of points?  Fewer battleline requirements?  Is that it?

As mentioned, at the moment god models would be impossible to field under the "no unit worth half your points" rule.

One of the other things is that the smaller the game, the quicker it can swing. Not always the case, but imagine a 200pt game - it would be tiny, and potentially won in a single turn (or whenever the two units clashed, probably the first striker winning). To an extent, the smaller the game the more chance it has to be decided in the first turns as the wound count is smaller (damage is also smaller, though not 1:1 amounts of smaller as most people will cut chaff from smaller lists rather their damaging units). This isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.

Finally, some combos don't work at lower points, usually because the combo piece (e.g. Morathi) doesn't have enough to buff. 

Sometimes these changes won't matter, but they're worth considering.

[Equinox]

18 minutes ago, Enoby said:

One of the other things is that the smaller the game, the quicker it can swing. Not always the case, but imagine a 200pt game - it would be tiny, and potentially won in a single turn (or whenever the two units clashed, probably the first striker winning). To an extent, the smaller the game the more chance it has to be decided in the first turns as the wound count is smaller (damage is also smaller, though not 1:1 amounts of smaller as most people will cut chaff from smaller lists rather their damaging units). This isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.

I don't know if I would agree with your statement about game swings being more pronounced at smaller levels as there are many accounts of games being effectively decided in the first turn of 2k games.  Instead what I would contend is that list design by many players doesn't account for the differences between 1k and 2k games.  As you mentioned, I think the initial reaction by many players is to cut the chaff, which I don't think is the right approach at 1k.  Instead, I think dialing down the damage and keeping the chaff makes for a better experience.  

[NinthMusketeer]

The difficulty is non-scaling mechanics. The game is balanced around 2000 points, and outside of that a number of mechanics get out of sync. Yes, I know GW and balance are a... let's say 'challenged' relationship, but that is all the more reason not to make it worse. To give some examples;

-Tzeentch gets 9 Fate Dice, the smaller the game the more they are worth

-Several factions summon the same amount regardless of game size; Nurgle and LotFP come to mind.

-Some models are designed around the enemy having the ability to focus-fire them down. As a Nurgle player, my GUO is already tanky as all hell at 2k, at 1500 most armies simply won't have the tools to kill him at all. To say nothing of the likes of Mega Gargants or VLoZD.

-Teleport mechanics are point costed around the enemy having 2000 points of army to deny them space. With less models on the table they gain a lot of tactical freedom.

And so on. I like the idea of moving to smaller games, but the reality is a bit more difficult. And really, the solution is GW pricing more reasonably.